ADMISSION OF NEW STATES. 






7 
^ 



SPEECH 




HON. WILLIAM 0. GOODE, OF VIRGINIA. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 9, 1858, 

On the policy of /idmittini^ new Stnlcii into the Union, and in defense f the South 
against the charge of perfidy in the repeal of the Missouri Compr mie. 



/ 



Tlir House being in thi; Comiiiilli-c of tlie Whole on llie 
Slate oftlie Union- 
Mr. GOODE said: 

Mr. Chairman: Oregon is before us, demand- 
ing; to be recofjnized as an independent Slate, in- 
vested witli supreme sovereign authority, and to 
be admitted into the Confederacy of American 
Republics. 

The admission of a new State into the Confed- 
eracy, is the exercise of a hi^^h attribute of Gov- 
ernment, but our authority is uiidrtubted, since it 
rests on an exjiress provision of the Constitution. 

The creation of a Commonwealth, its initiation j 
amonu; the Republics of America, is an event to , 
strike on the imagination, but the frequrticy of 
the occurrence has deprived it of interest. It has 
ceased even to produce a sensation. 

It seumti to have been adopted as the settled 
policy of Govi>rnmeiit to encourage new political 
organizations, to stimulate their growth, and ad- 
mit them into the Union, as soon as circumstances 
\V'1I excuse it. It may be Questioned wiietherthe 
wisdom of this policy has been examined by the 
statesnii'ii of the present day and generation. The 
expansion of our populated area, and consequent 
difi'u.sion of our population, is calculated to impair 
the aggregate energy of society for the purposes 
of war and all the great objects of Gi>vernment. 
The superior efficiency of concentrated effort, as 
compared with individualized e.xertion, seems to 
be admitted by sages, statesmen, and pliilo.sophers. 
It is the principle which rusts at the foundation of 
tlie socialists' system, and has failed in their liands 
from tiie want of that unity of will and persist- 
ency of purpose which are essential to energy 
and success. It is self-evidt-nt, that the diffusion 
of population is unfriendly to concentration of 
force. 

The great defect in American agriculture is the 
scarcity of labor. This evil is increased by the 
expansion of Territory, and bringing new west- 
ern lands into cultivation. 

Till' establishment of territorial communities, 
and the ajiplication of the complicated machinery 
of Government to distant and numerous localities, 
occasions an indefinite and alarming increase of 
expenditures. 

The price of lands in the old States is inju- 
riously affected by the hot-bed policy of creating 
new-States. The emigrants from the East, seek- 



ing new lands in the West, would create a demand 
for lands in the East, and thus add to their market 
value. But this demand is lost by emigration; 
and, in addition to this evil, many emigrants force 
their own eastern land.s into inarki.'t, thus adding 
t<i the supply, whilst they have already lessened 
the demand, and thus greatly reduce the market 
value of eastern lands. When the lands of the 
emigrant are sold in the East, the purchasers are 
toiling through years pending money to the West 
to pay their debts. If this money could be re- 
tained in the East, a part of it would be invested 
in eastern lands, and thus add to the market value. 
But, being diverted from its natural channel, and 
sent off to the West, this advantage is entirely 
lost. Colonizing new Territories and States cre- 
ates a spirit of speculation; and eastern capital- 
ists, instead of investing their money in eastern 
lands, embark in western speculation, thus less- 
ening the demand and reducing the price of our 
lands; whilst the withdrawal of capital from the 
natural channel occcasiona hard times and high 
interest for money. 

Such are the effects of the colonizing policy, on 
the physical condition, the agricultural and com- 
mercial prosperity of the old States. Its political 
results are analogous. To one unfamiliar with 
the secret sj^rings to political movements at the 
seat of Government, it would appear niy3teriou.>* 
and incomprehensible, that Representatives from 
theoldStateson the Atlantic, should manifest such 
eagerness to establish new States in the West. It 
1 is undoubtedly true thai political machinations 
I exert an influence on the subject. It is by no 
j means certain that presidential aspirations are 
, wholly inert and inefficient; whilst it is impossi- 
ble wholly to exclude the idea that the spirit of 
speculation occasionally obtrudes into the mind of 
Congress, inclining members to favor a policy 
affording a wide field for speculative operations. 
These and other causes have conspired to give a 
powerful impulse to the policy of stimulating new 
political organizations to be hurried into the fam- 
ily of American Republics — a policy which in- 
vests a comparatively few pioneer settlers in the 
West with a political power, exerting a control- 
ling influence on the policy of Governnient, dis- 
a.Hfrous in its effect on the material condition, the 
agricultural and commercial prosperity of the old 
Slates. 



*^*^^^'"**'— *-^-— ■ / 






As an illustration of the effect of this policy, 

let is contemplate the probable results of the le- 

/ .'gis ation of the present Congress. Minnesota is 

( admitted with a population of about one hundred 

V -.And fifty thousand souls, wielding a power in the 

^-Senate equal to the imperial greatness of New 

York withapopulation approachingfour millions ! 

Oregon, with a population of fifty thousand, will 

be admitted, to wield a power in the Senate equal 

to the great State of Pennsylvania, the keystone 

of the beautiful arch of the Confederacy, with a 

jiopulation, perhaps, of two millions and a half. 

Blitdinff Kansas, to weigh down the " uTiterrified 

Old Dominion !" Let it be remembered that the 

Senate shares the whole legislative power with 

the House of Representatives, and a large portion 

of executive authority with the President of the 

United States; thus commanding the action of 

Government ! 

Sir, nothing less than a powerful motive could 
reconcile the northern Atlantic Slates to the pol- 
icy of stimulating the admission of new States; 
and that motive is to be found in their hatred of 
the institutions of the South. The new States are 
expected to be free States, sympathizing with the 
Abolitionists in their rancorous detestation of the 
South; and the fanatical impatience to establish 
in the Senate a decided preponderance of Free-Soil 
influence, reconciles the North to the great sacri- 
fice to which they are subjected by the operation 
of this destructive policy. That preponderance is 
already established — fearfully, fatally established. 
At the opening of the present session of Congress 
the Senators from the free States were thirty-two; 
those from the South only thirty, giving to the 
North a majority of tioo. The members of the 
House of Representatives from the North, num- 
bered one hundred and forty-four; those from the 
South only ninety, giving to the North a majority 
ofjifty-four. 

At the last presidential election the members 
of the electoral college of the North, numbered 
one hundred and seventy-six; those from the 
South, one hundred and twenty, giving to the 
North a majority offijhj-six. The whole strength 
of the Democratic principle, with the vast energy 
of the Democratic organization, were barely able 
to save the South from the effects of an election 
purely and completely sectional. 

At the opening of the next Congress, Sena- 
tors from the North will jnobably numlier thirty- 
eight, those from the South but thirty, giving to j 
the North a majority of eight; whilst in the House 
of Representatives the members from the North 
will probably range one hundred and forty-eight, 
those from the South only ninety, giving to the 
North a majority of Jifty- eight. At the next pres- 
idential election, the electoral college from the 
North will probably number one hundred and 
eighty-six; those from the South, one hundred 
and twenty, giving to the North a majority of 
sixty-six. After the taking of the next census this 
condition of things will be incalculably aggra- 
vated. Thus is it shown that the ascendency of 
the North is completely established in all the 
elective departments of the Government; and the 
constitutional rights and equality of the South are 
held at the mercy of the North. The rights of 
the South are absolutely dependent on tin; justice 
and clemency of those who hold our institutions 
in detestation, who have already indulged in 
threats, and who have been unable to repress the 
mutterings of rage and of revenge. 



It has been beautifully and poetically said by 
Byron that " none are all evil." It may be that 
objectionable principles, when pushed to their ex- 
tent, produce favoraljle results. We of the South 
may derive some advantage from the policy of 
stimulating and admitting new States. True, they 
will jnobably side with the North on the vital 
question of slavery; but they will find their in- 
terest in the principle of free trade, and may be 
induced to lend assistance to the South, in redu- 
cing the duties on imports, in repealingdrawbacks 
and bounties, and modifying the navigation laws 
so as to deprive the North of the unjust, oppres- 
sive, and ruinous monopoly of the carrying trade. 
Southern energy will be directed to the accom- 
plishment of this important object. 

These suggestions are merely offered — not elab- 
orated. They are designed only to give direction 
to the current of thought, and especially to the 
Representatives from the South. In a speech elab- 
orately prepared, and delivered some years since, 
it was said by Mr. CbiNGMAhf, that, under the 
operation of the navigation laws, freight from New 
Orleans to New York was equal to freight from 
New York to Canton ! I do not discuss iliis topic 
now. I hope hereafter to he able to bestow on 
it greater attention. For the present, I pass on 
the great highway of thought to the examina- 
tion of topics which have already engaged atten- 
tion. 

Sir, I have a duty to iierform, a solemn duty; 
a duty to the South, to Virginia — to John Ran- 
dolph of Roanoke. Some days since, my hon- 
orable colleague [Mr. Garnett] made allusion 
to the deed of cession ijy which Virginia conveyed 
the Northwestern Territory to the United States, 
and especially to the clause which stipulates that 
not more than five States shall be formed of the 
Territory, and he charged, as a breach of the pact, 
that a large extent of territory was left without 
the boundaries of the five northwestern States. 
A member from Pennsylvania [Mr. Grow] re- 
pelled the charge, and represented that part of the 
Virginia grant as a mere strip of country attached 
to Minnesota, a magnificent State with ninety 
thousand square miles of territory, one third 
greater than the State of Virginia! and with this 
statement the member seemed to feel his vindica- 
tion complete. Now, sir, this strip of country, of 
'which he speaks with so much levity, is a tract 
of twenty-two thousand square miles, beingnearly 
equal to one half the superficial extent of the great 
State of Pennsylvania or New York, and about 
equal to all that part of Virginia which lies between 
the Blue Ridge and the Atlantic, full three times as 
large as the lohole State of Massachusetts ! larger 
than the combined area of New Hampshire, Mas- 
sachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut! 

It may be proper to remark that, in superficial 

' extent, this strip of country is more than equal to 

; one third part of the State of Georgia. Thegen- 

l tleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] treated the 

suggestion of my colleague as a reason urged for 

the rejection of the bill. But that view was 

waived, and it was adduced as a violation of the 

terms of the deed of cession. Considered as an 

objection to the bill, the gentleman from Georgia 

insists that it was taken too late; that it should 

have been stated on the passage of the enabling 

act. But if Congress, in the enabling act, by its 

I own act, set forth a boundary involving a breach 

of trust, is it competent to Congress to excuse 

' the consummation of that breach of trust in the 



§ 



act for admission, by pleading that the breach 
was initiated in the enabling act r That is a ques- : 
tion which I refer to the ca"suisis. In any event, 
my colleague was not concluded to make llie ob- 
jection, be<:ause he votid against the enalding ! 
act, as I did. Hut \vaivin>z this objrction to the I 
iidniission of Mimiesoia, 1 voted ("or the bill, 
while I hold thai as an unjust and oppn-ssive 
violation of the terms of the cession, tin' sugges- 
tion of my colleagui" remains without answer. 
As such it was brouiilu forward, and us such it 
was Cdiisidercd by ihi' gentleman from Pennsyl- 
vania, [Mr. Grow.] Warming' with hissubjecl, 
and assuming a lofty biarin^^ this gentleman an- 
nounced that the charge of breach of faith came 
with an ill-grace from my cidhague, because, he 
says: 

" Yiiur I'iiihtT.-! mill our fniln-M inatle n compact in IRIO, 
liy w liifli ihe Loui.-ijinn purclmse, west otitic then limit!) ol 
Missouri. !iii(t ol'norlli 30° 'M\ wiis ile<licntril forever to free- 
(loiii; liut al'lrrwarilsyim took tin- I'lain; c.iiiiilifs.iiow the 
si-vcii Wfsiern counties ol Mi.-soun, tlii' ritliest and noblest 
portion of iliat S'.iiti-, I'rom nniler the opi;ralion ol' that or j 
<liiiancr,aii(l (|i(licRt(.(l it o slavery. Voiirtatlurs did that, i 
and \(>u have justirii;d tin- art." I 

I do "justify the act;" I have justified much ] 
more than that; and stand ready to vindicate the 
deed. Hut, sir, my object is to deny, to surcharge, 
and falsify the allegation that " yuur fathers and 
our fathers made a compact in Ib'iO by which | 
the Louisiana purcliasu west of Missouri, and 
north of 360 3U', v.as dedicated forever" to what 
you call freedom. I deny that such a compact 
was ever made between the N<ntli and South; and 
if there were, then I deny that Virginia was any I 
party to such compact. In other words, I deny \ 
that there ever was plighted faith on the part of ' 
the South, and especially of Virginia, to invest 
the act of Congress usually descrilicd as the Mis- j 
aouri compromise, with any |>eculiar degree of [ 
sanctity. The charge has been often made. Mem- I 
bers of Congress from the North have felt them- • 
selves called upon to indulge iii strains of hitter 
denunciation of the perfidious breach of faith in- 
volved in the action of southern members in re- 
pealing the Missouri compromise. The charge 
IS gratuitous, and unsupported by the truth of 
history. 

Sir, 1 am at a lo.ss to conceive on what evidence 
the declaration has been hazarded that the Mis- 
souri c(»iTipromi.se, as it is termed in common 
parlance, was invested with the dignity of a com- 
pact, or varied in any manner from an ordinary 
act of Congress. This cannot be inferred from 
the fact that several southern memtiers voted for 
the measure; because such a rule would invest 
every law with the dignity and sanctity of an un- 
alterable compact. Hut, even upon such a rule, it 
is shown by the record that the Missouri com- 
promise was rejected Ijy Virginia, and repudiated 
by her Representatives in Congress. It has been 
conceded, because it could not lie denied, that the 
measure was proposed by a northern Senator. 
In the session of IM'J-^O, "A bill for the admis- 
sion of the State of Maine" had passed the House 
of Representatives; and, in the Senate, a commit- 
tee had reported, as an amendment to that bill, a 
clause for the admission of Missouri on the same 
terms; that is, without restriction on the subject 
of slavery. Various propositions were made to 
amend that amendment, by adding a section to 
exclude the institution of slavery from the Slate 
of Missouri; but all these were successfully re- 
sisted by the united South. Defeated in the ob- 



ject of excluding slavery from the State of Mis- 
souri, the North, in the person of Mr. Thomas, 
of Illinois, brought forward the clause to ex-'lude 
it from the Territories north of ."JfjOSC north lat- 
itude, and not comprehended within the limits of 
the State. The vote was taken on that proposi- 
tion on the 17ih February, 1820. It was supported 
bv every northern Senator, except the two from 
Indiana', and carried in the atJirmative. The vole 
was taken by yeas and nays. Hoih the Senators 
iVom Virginia recorded their vntes in the nega- 
tive and against the Missouri compromise, as did 
also Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, and 
Juil^'e Smith, of South Carolina, both of whom 
have been claimed as supporters of the compro- 
mise. (See Senate Journal, I8r.l-2II, page UiG.) 
1 am aware it has been staled on authority — 
high ir.deed with many minds— that ihe yeas and 
nays were not taken on the motion " to insert 
the section constituting the compromise. " (See 
" Hellion's Thirty Years View," page 8.) But 
I exhibit the record. The vote iheii ncurred on 
the question, "Shall the amendments to the bill 
be engrossed, and read a third time .'" and on this 
Virginia, and ihe South generally, did vote in the 
artii mative. Hut that was not a clear vole on the 
single principle of the Missouri compromise. The 
amendments ordered to be engrossed were the sec- 
, lions i)roviding for the admission of Missouri na 
an amendment to the Maine bill, and Virginia 
voted with the South, that if Maine wi're admit- 
ted, Missouri should be admitted also, without 
the clause excluding slavery, even though Con- 
gress usurped the power to exclude it from all ter- 
ritory norili of 3(5° 31'' not comprehended within 
ihe limits of the State; and the bill passed th.- Sen- 
ale in that form, without division. A very diftcr- 
ent fate awaited it in the House of Representa- 
tives, where the amendments were rejected by a 
'; very general vote— the North being against them 
because they admitted slavery in the Stale of Mis- 
souri, whilst the South opposed them because 
they excluded slavery from the Territory. 
I The House having thus rejected the ameiul- 
I menis, the bill was sent back to the Senate, where 
j a member from Rhode Island (Mr. Hurrill) moved 
10 recede from the Senate amendments, and Mr. 
I Macon called for a division of the question, soas 
to lake one vole on admitting Missouri \yithout 
restriction, and another vole on the section ex- 
1 eluding slavery from the Territories. Mr. Smith 
and Mr. Macon, with both the Virginia Senators, 
I and a majority of the Senate, including all the 
Senators from the South, voted agai^ist receding; 
namely, they voted to insiston heradniission;aiid 
i so iheclause was retained. The question was then 
I taken on receding from the amendment which 
I prohibited slavery north of 3GO 3U' in the Terri- 
I tones, when Mr. Smith and Mr. Macon, with 
i)oih the Virginia Senators, voted to recede, which 
was equivalent to a vote to strike out the section; 
that is, to reject the Missouri compromise. (See 
Senate Journal, page 189.) Vet it has been as- 
I seried that Nathaniel Macon and Judge Smilh 
and James Harbour and James Pleasants had re- 
corded their plighted faith in favor of ihis com- 
promise, to be oTiservcd as a sacred compact be- 
tween the North and South ! The Senate then 
insisted on its several amendments; and no other 
vole was taken in that body at all involving the 
principle of the compromise, until after the report 
of the committee of conference. Heaven save the 
country from all future committees of conference ! 



'It recommended that the Senate recede from all 
their amendments to the bill for the admission of 
Maine, and that the bill of the House of Repre- 
sentatives to enable the people of Missouri luform i 
a Sta!e government, &c., should be so amended j 
as to strike out the clause prohibiting slavery 
within the State to be formed, and to insert a new '[ 
section prohibiting slavery in all that territory ; 
!:eded by France to the United States, under the ! 
name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30' j 
north latitude, not included within the limits of 
'he State of Missouri. 

The country is familiar with the report of that \ 
committee. On the question to strike out the 
clause prohibiting slavery in Missouri, Virginia, 
and the whole South, with a large majority of the 
Senate, voted in the affirmative, thus admitting 
slavery into Missouri. The question to insert the 
•;ompromise clause was carried without a division. 
But that does not justify the inference that the 
Virginia Senators assented to the principle of the 
Missouri compromise. They had already voted ' 
against its insertion in the first instance. They 
had voted to strike it out, when an opportunity 
was presented. They liad sufficiently evinced 
their opposition to the principle, and as a small 
and helpless minority, it was unnecessary to con- 
sume tile time of the Senate with an unavailing 
vote by yeas and nays. 

It has been alleged in the " Thirty Year's 
View," (page 8,) that — 

•• The unanimity of the slave States in the f^eiiate, wliere 1 
lilt; measure originated, is shown by its Journal, not on the 
motion to insert the section constituting the compromise 
(lor on that motion the yeas and nays were not taken) but ' 
on tlic motion to strike it out, when they were taken, and j 
showed lliirty votes for the compromise and fifteen against ] 
il — every one of the latter from non-slaveliolding States — 
tlif- former comprehending every slave State vote present, 
and a few from the North." 

The author then furnishes a list of the Sena- 
tors who are claimed to have voted for the com- 
promise, and among them are Governor Barbour 
.and Governor Pleasants of Virginia, Judge Wil- | 
!iam Smith of South Carolina, and Nathaniel 
-Macon of North Carolina, and, indeed, all the 
Senators from the South, with several distin- 
guished names from the northern States, and de- 
■clares that" this array of names shows the Mis- 
souri compromise to liave been a southern meas- 
sure." 

I have to say that after diligent search, I have 
not been able to discover the record of such a 
vote. I do find that after the adoption of the 
clause excluding slavery from the Territories, 
north of 360 30', Mr. Trimble, of Ohio, did move 
to strike out that clause and insert another, exlend- 
ing the operation of the principle of the compro- 
mise so as to apply it to all territory north of 
3GO30'and i\\\ soxith of that line not embraced within 
the ijoundaries of the State of Louisiana and 
the Territory of Arkansas east 94° of longitude 
— agreeably to Melish's map. On this question, 
James Barbour, James Pleasants, Nathaniel Ma- 
con, William Smith, and every southern Senator, 
did vote in the negative; but that was a vote re- 
fusing to extend the principle of the compromise; 
a V(tte refusing to give it application to territory 
south of 36° 30'; and cannot be tortured into an 
approval of the compromise. Yet that was the 
only vote on the subject, in the Senate, of which 
I can find a record, taken after the carrying into 
effect the recommendation of the committee of 
conference. (Senate Journal 1819-20, page 202.) 



Sir, I deny that there is evidence on record— I 

deny that there is evidence in being to establish 
the pro [losi lion that the Senatoi sfVom Virgin in, or 
Nathaniel Macon, or William Smith, of South 
Carolina, ever gave the sanction of their names 
to the principles of the Missouri compromise, to 
iie observed as a compact between the J'J^orth and 
South — binding in plighted faith — sacred and im- 
mutable. 

Passing from the Senate to the House of Rep- 
resentatives, we shall find the South resolutely 
and persistently resisting the principle of exclu- 
ding slavery, as well from the State as from the 
Territory, from the day of its introduction in the 
bill of February, 1819, down to the final voting 
on the Maine bill on the 28th of February, 1820, 
when the amendment of the Senate having for its 
object the admission of Missouri with slavery, 
and the amendment having for its object the ex- 
clusion of slavery from the Territories, were ex- 
pressly disagreed to and rejected by the House. 

In the House of Representatives, February 28, 
1820, the amendment for the admission of Mis- 
souri with slavery, was supported by every mem- 
ber from the South except one. It was opposed 
by every member from the North except Jive. 
Seventy-six members voted to admit the State 
with slavery, seventy-one coming from the South. 
Ninety -seven members voted against admitting 
the State with slavery, ninety-six coming from 
, the North. 

j The amendment to exclude slavery from the 
territory north of 36° 30' was resisted by every 
member from the South, excejjt five. Sixty-seven 
memljers from the South recorded their votes 
against that principle, and but five in its favor. 
(See House Journal 1820, pages 255,256,257.) 
"Thus is it shown, that the South was united 
against the principles of the compromise down 
to the close of the voting on the 28th February, 
1820; and I feel that I should do injustice to my 
native State — my own beloved Virginia — if I 
should fail to direct attention to the fact that on 
that day she cast twenty-two votes to admit Mis- 
souri with slavery, and twenty-two votes against 
excluding slavery from the Territories — one mem- 
ber from Virginia only voting against the body 
of his colleagues ! 

It was, then, on the 28th February, 1820, that 
a northern Senator moved, in the Senate, for a 
conference. Ominous and boding proposition! 
Sir, 1 always ex;ierience a sensation of uneasi- 
ness at the slightest allusion to that cunning de- 
vice — that powerful, that dangerous and mis- 
chievous agency, known as a committee of con- 
ference. The resolution for a conference was 
adopted; and Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, (author of 
the compromise,) Mr. Pinckney, of Maryland, 
who had supported the compromise, and Mr. 
Barbour, of Viri;inia, were appointed managers 
on the part of the Senate. The House of Repre- 
sentatives concurred, and Mr. Holmes, of Mas- 
.sachusetts, Mr. Taylor, of New York, Mr. 
Lowndes, of South Carolina, Mr. Parker, of 
Massachusetts, and Mr. Kinsey, of New Jersey, 
were appointed managerson the partofthe House 
of Representatives. Four members from the 
North and one from the South. 

I have already stated the character of the re- 
port of the committee. It recommended that the 
' clause excluding slavery from Missouri should 
jj be stricken from the Missouri bill, and a new 
I section inserted excluding slavery from the Ter- 



rities north of 36° 30'. And as the votes of mem- 
bers on these twci propositions are relied upon to 
decide the character of the transaction, I ask for 
the subject the particuhir aittritioii of this l)ody. 
It was on the :2d of March, 1«:20, wlien tlic Iltiu.se 
was called to act. It was a moment of intense 
interest. It was known that the fate of the meas- 
ure depended on the vote to strike out the clause 
excluding slavery from Missouri, because it liad 
been ascertained by repeated tests that no bill 
could pass the Senate which excluded slavery 
from the State. It was known to be extremely 
doubtful whether the motion to strike out could 
prevail. By voting with those from the North 
who were opposed to the motion, the South could 
retain the clause in the bill, and secure tlie ulti- 
mate defeat of the measure. Hut such a vote was 
inconsistent with their principles; and the result 
was doubtful to the last. But they did act upon 
their principles, cast their votes for the motion, 
and the clause was stricken from the bill — yeas 
90, nays 87. I shall have occasion, in a few mo- 
ments, to recur to this vote. 

The clause excluding slavery from Missouri 
having been stricken from the bill, the question 
recurred on inserting the section which excluded 
slavery from the Territories; which prevailed by 
a larg(.> majority — yeas 134, nays 42. (House 
Journal Itii'J-^ti, page 277.) Of the one hundred 
and thirty-four yeas, ninety-five came from the 
North, thirty-nine from the South. Of the forty- 
two nays, five came from the North, and thirty- 
seven from the South. It will be observed that the 
North cast one hundred votes, of which ninely-J'ive 
supported the compromise, and ^/ir^- opposed it. 
The South cast seventy-si.\ votes, of which (/tirii/- 
nine were cast in the affirmative, and thirty-seven 
against the compromise. With the irresistible 
power of a conference coinmittee exerted in favor 
of the compromise, the South was divided as thir- 
ty-nine to thirty-seven, whilst ninety-five of one 
hundred from the North voted in a body for the 
bill. Yet havu northern members stood up here to 
treat the Missouri compromise as a measure of the 
South forced upon the iSforth, ranting and declaim- 
ing and denouncing the South for a perfidious 
breach of plighted faith pledged between " your 
fathers and our fathers!" Sir, in the presence of 
the American Congress, I denounce the Missouri 
compromise as a measure of the North forced upon 
the South. Like all other compromises, as a 
measure of the strong forced upon the weak. 

Again, sir, 1 say, I feel that I should fail in my 
duty to my own, my native land — my own be- 
loved Virginia, if 1 did not direct attention to the 
fact, that, even by the anaconda coil of a confer- 
ence committee, siie could not be constrained to 
assent to the hateful principle of the Missouri 
compromise; but on this final test she cast eigh- 
teen votes against the coinpromise, and only /our 
in its favor; and that, too, when her own son, 
James Monroe, as President of the United States, 
was known to feel the deepest interest in the suc- 
cess of the measure. 

I said I should revert to the vote to strike out 
the clause excluding slavery from Missouri. The 
defeat of that propo.'^ition would have secured the 
defeat of the Missouri compromise, because the 
Senate would have rejected it; but the body of 
southern members voted to strike it out, because 
they held it to be a paramount duty to admit .Missouri 
without the restriction. The motion prevailed by 
a majority of three votes — yeas 90, nays 87. It 



was observed that, during the voting, several 
northern members, who were opposed to the mo- 
tion on principle, because it would admit slavery 
into Missouri, retired from the House withhold- 
ing their votes, and thus securing the success of 
the motion, and, eventually, the success of the 
conifiromise. This fact is staled on the authority 
of Hon. Charles Fenton Mercer, then a member 
of Congress from Virginia, and one who voted 
for the Missouri compromise. I give extracts 
from a letter, dated Berlin, Prussia, September 
12, 1854, directed to Hon. William S. Archer, of 
Virginia, also a member of Congress from Vir- 
ginia, in 1820. Mr. Mercer says: 

•' .Alter I arose, ;i Kiriiii r class iiiatf ol mine at Prince- 
Ion, llciiry Kdvvard-i, ol Coiiiiecliciit, lelt it, (llie House,) 
anil (lid not return III! the volt- hud l)efii taken." * ' 

•■ 'I'lie qiit^Ktion was thus delayed nil tli>> iiiglit was far 
advanced. As Htion a.-* C reeovered, and llu' members re- 
gained llicir seats, llie i]ueRlion wns taken, by aye.s and 
noes; and tlie lirst aineiidmeiil adopted by a majority of 
three voles only, in the aliseiiee of Edwards and several oth- 
er* of il\ Ojiponcnta. 1 1< friends were all present, and num- 
bered anioiij; thi'iii lianilolph and yourself '> * * 

" Tin; seeond resolulion was llieii put, and passed by a 
large majority, of which I was one, you and Uandolph vo- 
tiiip ai;aiiisl it. As soon as he perci'ived that many inem- 
liers Iron) the South had voicd for it, he sprang up Iroiii his 
seal, in great indignation ;aiid exclaiming as he addrcssiMl the 
Speaker, ' the cards are packed ; I will not play the game,' 
moved a reconsideration of tln' first amendment, whicll 
nioiioii you seconded. Deducting your vote and Uandolph 's 
from the majority, it was obvious that the first amendment 
would be lost, even llioiigh the opponents of it, who had 
uune out, and whom Itandnlpli styled doughfaei s, had not 
returned, as some ol lliem obviously had. It was now late 
at night. The Senate had adjourned : and a member friendly 
to the second resolution, as well as llie first, perceiving that 
if the vote were taken the amendment would be lost, re- 
i|iiesie(l Mr. Itandulpli to withdraw his motion till tin- ensu- 
ing day ; staling that, as the Senate had adjourned, the res- 
olution could not pass that night, and that the rules of the 
Mouse allowed a day alter the passage of any act I'or its re- 
consideration." • ««••«• 

" I was seated by Mr. Randolph." * * "Accord- 
ingly, he wnveil his mriiion for the present, announcing his 
intention to renew it the ensuing morning ; and the House 
immediatHly adjourned. 

" 'I'he morning came ; the House met, and Randolph was 
in his place ; he rosi; and renewed liis motion, which the 
Speaker pronounced out of order, as the reports of com- 
millees had precedence, after the readingoflhe Journal, to 
all other business. 

'■ In the mean lime, the Clerk, having read the Journal, 
was set.'ii walking towards the door leading tu the Senate, 
with the resolulion and the amendment in his hand, when 
Itaiidolph's attention being called to the fact, he audibly 
ordered him to stop. Instantly Lewis .McLane commanded 
him to ' proceed at his peril,' in a voice still loudi^r than 
Randolph's. The Clerk did so ; and so the Senators, as I 
personally knoir, being prepared by Thomas, of Illinois, took 
up the aiiiendments as soon as the resolution reached their 
table, and finally passed them, and consequently thereby 
closed all further proceedings in regard to it. 

'• The reports of committees having been ended in the 
Mouse, .Mr. Kandolph again rose to renew his motion for 
reconsideration, when Ik; was officially lold by the Speaker 
that the bill had gone to the Senate."' 

Such is the statement of the honorable Charles 
Fenton Mercer, sustained in its essential points 
by the Journal of the House of Representatives. 
(Sec Journal March 3, 1820, page 275, et seq.) 

It appears from the Journal (page 279) that Mr. 
Raniiolph submitted the motion to reconsider the 
vote, and that it was ruled by the Speaker t<i be 
out of order; from which decision Mr. Randolph 
appealed, and the decision of the Speaker was 
sustained by the House. 

When the committees had been called, the 

Speaker announced that " petitions are in order 

from the States;" and when Virginia was called, 

Mr. Randolph moved the House to retain in their 

' possession the act for the admission of Missouri 

i' until it should be in order to move to reconsider 



6 



the vote of the preceding day. The Speaker 
ruled that motion out of order, for the reasons 
stated on the previous motion made by Mr. Ran- 
dolph " to reconsider the vote of yesterday." 
(House Journal, page 280.) 

When the States had been called for petiiions, 
and reports had been received from the several 
committees, and a message had been received 
from the Senate, Mr. Randolph moved the House 
to reconsider the vote of the preceding day on the 
first amendment to the bill for the admission of 
Missouri; and then the Speaker, having ascer- 
tained the fact, informed the House that the pro- 
ceedings of yesterday on that bill had been offi- 
cially communicated to the Senate by the Clerk; 
whereupon Mr. Randolph moved a resolution de- 
claring that in carrying the bill to the Senate, after 
he had given notice of his purpose to move a re- 
consideration of a vote of yesterday, on which 
he voted with the majority, " the Clerk is guilty 
of a breach of the privileges of a member of this 
House, under the rules thereof." The Speaker 
put the question: " Will the House now proceed 
to consider the said resolution.'" and it was de- 
termined in the negative. 

Mr. Randolph then submitted the following 
proposition: 

" That so much of the 37th rule as allows a reconsider- 
ation of any question, hy motion of a memher of the ma- 
jority on such question, on the day succeeding that on 
wliich such question be taken, be expunged." 

The said proposition was read, and ordered to 
the table /or one (Za?/;and then, immediately, it was 
ordered, on motion of Mr. Gross, of J^ew York, 
that when the House adjourns it adjourn to meet 
on Monday next. (See Journal House, page 281.) 
And on Monday, a message was received from 
thi; President of the United States that he had 
signed " An act to authorize the people of the 
Territory of Missouri to form a constitution and 
State government, and for the admission of such 
State into the Union on an equal footing with the 
original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain 
Territories. (See House Journal, March 6, 1820, 
page 287.) 

And now, sir, v/ith this unvarnished narrative 
of fact.s, attested by indisputable evidence, I sub- 
mit to the judgment of the candid, whether my 
illustrious predecessor was not visited with a de- 
gree of rigor in the application of the rules which 
amounted to [iractical tyranny.' And, sir, it was 
this rigor of rule, this tyranny of practice, which 
carried through the forms of legislation this de- 
testable Missouri compromise. A compact be- 
tween " your fathers and our fathers !" No, sir. 
It was an iron edict forced upon the South by the 
North — forced upon the weak l)y the strong. 

Sir, John Randolph of Roanoke moved a re- 
consideration of a vote on a vital question; and, 
by the rigid ruling of the Speaker, his repeated 
efforts to secure a vote on his motion were all de- 
feated; and the vote on his motion and several res- 
olutions was never taken, until the que.'^tion in- 
volving the fate of the compromise had been taken 
from the House to the Senate, had been acted on 
by the Senate, and sent to the President, and ap- 
proved by the President and returned to the 
House ! 

And now, sir, I have shown that the compro- 
mise originated with the North, and was intro- 
duced into the Senate by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. 
When originally inserted as an amendment to 
the Missouri bill, it was supported by every Sen- 



ator present from the North, except the two from 
Indiana, (Mr. Noble and Mr. Taylor.) The 
strength of the opposition to the amendment came 
from the South: Virginia, South Carolina, and 
Georgia voted against it; North Carolina was 
divided — Mr. Macon against, and Mr. Stokes in 
the affirmative. The body of the slaves at that 
time was to be found in those States. The South 
was divided on that amendment as twelve yeas to 
eight nays; but a majority of the slave interest was 
represented by the eight Senators. The Senators 
front! Delaware were of the twelve; and that State, 
on the border of Pennsylvania, is conceded to 
have but small interest in the subject. The south- 
ern Senators who supported the amendment rep- 
resented new States, asking favors daily from this 
Government, at a time when it was notorious that 
the President of the United States was extremely 
anxious the measure should prevail. 

I have shown that in the House of Represent- 
atives the compromise was resolutely and persist- 
ently resisted, until the report from the commit- 
tee of conference; and, even with the irresistible 
force of that agent, seconded by the influence of 
a southern President, the South was divided into 
parts of almost exact equality, whilst ninety-five 
of one hundred northern members voted in a body 
for the Missouri compromise. Yet has it been 
paraded as a measure of the South, forced upon 
the North ! 

But, sir, I confess that the fact to which I point 
with peculiar emphasis, and with a feeling of per- 
sonal pride, is the position of my native State — 
resisting the fatal principle of the compromise, 
regardless alike of all considerations of a delu- 
sive State policy and the seductive blandishments 
and allurements of executive influence. 

And now, sir, 1 demand justice at the hands 
of the northern Representatives. I exact it as an 
obligation of honor, from every member from the 
North, whenever he finds himself declaiming be- 
fore his constituents on the perfidious infamy of 
the South in violating her plighted faith by the 
repeal of the Missouri compromise, to exempt 
Virginia from the force of his denunciation, or to 
feel, in his own heart, that he is meanly attempt- 
ing to impose on the ignorance of his own con- 
stituents in attempting to produce a false impres- 
sion by a representation of facts which, as to Vir- 
ginia, he knows to be false. 

Sir, in the order of Providence and the work- 
ings of fortune, it devolves on me, all unworthy 
as I am, to represent the grave, the ashes, the 
memory, of John Randolph of Roanoke. It is 
a perilous privilege to stand here to-day as the 
humble defender, if not the champion, of his bril- 
liant fame; but, sir, I proudly present for the ad- 
miration of his country this bright example of 
his sagacity, this striking proof of his devoted 
fidelity to his native State. Sir, if he were not 
the most fervid and impassioned orator of thai 
Augustan age in which he lived, he possessed a 
power of language amounting to a fascination — 
a mysterious charm — exerting an influence over 
the will and conduct of men which I never wit- 
nessed in another. 

And now, sir, I feel myself fully authorized to 
commend the poisoned chalice to the lips of the 
honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, and to 
say to hitu that the cliarge of broken taith comes 
with an ill grace from that side of the House. I 
might challenge the honorable gentleman to point 
to a single instance of plighted faith, faithfully 



executed on the part of llie North towards the 
South. If, for the sake of the argument, but 
against the truth of the case, we assume that tlie 
act for the admission of Missouri was founded in 
pact, involving honor and plighted faith — it can 
be ri'adily shown that the compact has b<en disre- 
gardi'd by the North. If it were a compromise at 
all, it rested on the principle of a partition of ter- 
ritory between parties contending for political 
powt^r, settling their dispute by dividing the sult- 
ject of controversy on a g('ogra|ihicnl line. This 
is the construction now sought to be established 
by the North, and by the gentleman from Pennsyl- 
vania us a Representative from the North. The 
contest for political power was settled on the prin- 
ciple ofa division of territory on 36° 3U' north lati- 
tude. In the case of the Louisiana [lurchnse, the 
Soutii nuuli- the sacrifice and abided by tin; princi- 
ple. As the law of the province of L()uisiana was 
supposed to extend the institutions of the South 
throughout its borders, the principle operated in 
favor of the North. They availed themselves of 
it, and secured from the South the whole territory 
north of that line, being nine hundred and sixty- 
four thousand square miles; leaving to the South 
only two hundred and twenty-four thousand four 
hundred and forty-five square miles. Again, 
when Texas was annexed, the laws of that State 
established the institutions of the South through- 
out her borders; but a large part of her territory 
extended north of 360 30' north latitude, and the 
application of the alleged principle of the Mis- 
eouri compromise would operate an advantage to 
the North. They accordingly claimed it and re- 
ceived it, and .secured from the South all that part 
of Texas lying north of 30° 30' north latitude, 
being .forty-three thousand five hundred and 
thirty-seven scpiare miles. In both these instances 
the North eagerly appropriated the advantages of 
the principle of the alleged Missouri compromise, 
and the Soutii submitted to the operation ofa bad 
principle and hard Ijargain. i 

In the running of time it came to pass that ac- 
quisitions were made from Florida. Here, too, 
the /f.T loci established the institutions of the 
South; and far the larger portion of the acquisi- 
tion was north of 30° 30', being tiie Territory of 
Oregon, with three hundred and forty-one thou- 
sand four hundred and sixty-three square miles; 
whilst in Florida jiroper, south of 360 3()', there 
were no more than fifty-nine thousand square 
miles. The North again availed themselves of 
the operation of the principle of the Missouri com- 
promise, and appropriated to themselves all of 
Oregon. 

Time rolled on, and it came to pass that acqui- 
sitions were made from Mexico, where slavery 
was prohibited. Here was a new phase in the 
operation of the principle of the pretended com- 
promise. Its action would be injurious to the 
interest of the North, ami otl'ensive to northern 
prejudices. The South would acquire an extensive 
area where our institutions had been excluded by 
the law of Mexico. On three dilferent occasions 
the principle had operated against the South. The 
North had insisted on the advantage; the South 
had acquiesced; and the North had secured the 
advantage; but on this first occasion when the 
principle secured an advantage to the South, it 
was repudiated by the North, and they claimed 
the whole extent of the Mexican grant. In vain 
did the South point to Louisiana. In vain did we 
point to Florida. In vain did we point to Texas. 



These examples were utterly disregarded; the 
principle of the Missouri compromise was repu- 
diated; the South was excluded from all partici- 
pation in the vast territory acquired from Mexico; 
and the North appropriated all to themselves ! 

They did even more than this. They took all, 
and more than all. They raised a claim to terri- 
tory in Texas, and with ^10,000,000, taken from 
the Treasury, they compromised v/itli Texas and 
settled the boundary between Texas and New 
Mexico, so as to take from the South eighty-two 
thousand square miles of Texan territory south 
of 3CO 30', and subject it to the authority of free 
soil North Texas claimed the boundary of the 
Rio Grande. Mexico invaded that territory. It 
was resented by the United States as an invasion 
of the sacred soil of America. Mexico was re- 
pulsed. The Texan title was supiiorted by the 
United Stales, and coiupieied from Alexico by the 
power of the sword. As an indemnity for the ex- 
l)ense8 of the war, a large cession of territory was 
made by Mexico to this country, and the United 
Slates succeed(;d to whatever title Mexico might 
have in the lands granted. New Mexi<-o was com- 
prehended in thegrant; and,asan American settle- 
ment, asserted against Texas tlie very title which 
had been asserted by Mexico against Texas, and 
which had occasioned the war; and which title 
had been conrpiered from Mexico by American 
arms, and conipiered from her as the rightful do- 
minion of Texas. 'Yet the Government of the 
Uniti.'d States supported the claim of New Mex- 
ico to the very land which had been conquered 
from Mexico as part of Texas, and made that 
claim the basis of a compromise with Texas, by 
which ««10,000,()00 were taken from the Treasury 
to pun-hiise out the claim of Texas, so as to add 
to New Mexicoeighty-two thousand square miles, 
from which tlie institutions of the South are ex- 
cluded, and which is subjected to the jurisdiction 
of Free-Soilers and Abolitionists of the North. 

I shall be pardoned in reviving a few other 
reminiscences of Punic faith. In 1833 the country 
was convulsed with the tariff agitation. North- 
ern oppression had goaded the South into open 
and frantic hostility to the policy of Government, 
and there was imminent peril of collision of arms. 
The South was pacified and appeased by a com- 
promise, which stipulated that at the close often 
years duties should be cidlectid by a horizontal 
tariff of twenty per cent, ad x-alorem. The South, 
in a true and lofty spirit of patriotism, consented 
to a very gradual reduction, so as to enable the 
North to prejuire for ihi' contemplated change. 
For seven years the reduction was .so slight as to 
be scarcely felt in the practical ojierations of the 
country. In 1841 the reduction was considerable; 
and thougli the North had been allowed seven 
years to accommodate themselves to the proposed 
change, they filled the country with loud and 
frantic complaints; they repudiated the principle 
of the compromise: they denounced the act of 
1833, and declared Ihat by its own terms it ex- 
pired in 1843— the very time when, by the terms 
. of the compromise, the horizontal duly of twenty 
per cent, was to be established as the permanent 
policy of Government. And in the stead of a 
faithful execution of the terms of the compact, 
they enacted the unjust, unconstitutional, odioua, 
and oppressive tariff of 1842. 

And thus has it been throughout our history. 

In 1784, Virginia executed her deed of cession, 

I for which she has received declamatory laudations 



8 



and nothing — nothing more. Instantly machin- 
ations Wire set on foot to apply to the vast ter- 
ritory the ordinance of 1787, and thus to exclude 
the generous donor from all participation m the 
settlement of that territory, of which she had 
madea munifioiiitand magnificent contribution to 
the United States. Northern politicians have been 
content to refer this movement to Thomas Jef- 
ferson, as a justification to them for its enactment. 
But Jrllersun was not infallible, and he was the 
only friend of the measure, and the solitary rep- 
resentative of that sentiment from Viiginia in 
1784. His State, with the entire South, voted 
against the ordinance in the Continental Congress, 
and it was successfully resisted by the unanimous 
South until 1787, when it is supposed to have 
passed, in consequence of a compromise entered 
into between the North and South, as I shall now 
proceed to relate. 

The Federal convention, which adopted the 
Constitution of the United States, was in session 
in Philadelphia. The Continental Congress was 
also holdingits session in New York. In adjusting 
the principles of the Federal Coti.stitution the con- 
vention had adopted a provision requiring a vote 
of two thirds to pass laws on the subject of com- 
merce and navigation, which was very unaccept- 
able to the North. It was also fiercely contested 
whether slaves should be regarded as persons or 
property; whether they should be held as entitled 
to representation, or treated as mere property sub- 
ject to taxation. It was also a question discussed 
whctheran obligation rested on the northern States 
to return fugitive slaves to their owners; and on 
these several topics the heats and dissensions be- 
came so great as to justify the apprehension that 
the convention v/ould dissolve without framing a 
Constitution at all. In this state of things it seems 
to have been understood between the members of 
the convention that the South would agree to sur- 
render tiie two-thirds vote on the subject of com- 
merce, and subject it to the action of a mere ma- 
jority; and that they should recommend to the 
Continental Congress to adopt the ordinance of 
1787, excluding slavery from the Northwestern 
Territory, on condition that the North would in- 
sert in the Constitution a clause for the rendition 
of fugitive slaves, and allow a representation for 
three fifths of the slaves, at the same time im- 
posing a tax on three fifths, and exempting two 
fifths from taxation. 

Sir, the South lias faithfully executed this con- 
tract. They surrendered the two-thirds vote on 
the subject of commerce, and subjected it to the 
action of a mere majority, by which they enabled 
a northern majority to initiate and establish a 
commercial system destructive to the South, and 
eminently advantageous to the North; a system 



LiBRftRV OF CONGRESS 

li 




twenty ir 
from slai 
forty-eigl 
the memb 
it was inti 
an equita 
Govern me 

eral States. But discarding the policy of direct 
taxes, you levy taxes by duties on imports — reg- 
ulated by the vote of the numerical northern ma- 
jority — and you have infused into the system, as 
a governing principle, high duties on commodities 
consumed by slaves and the owners of slaves, and 
low duties on the commodities consumed by the 
inhabitants of what you call free States; thus de- 
feating the object of the Constitution, and inflict- 
ing on the South a grievous practical oppression. 
How have you redeemed your plighted faith 
on the subject of the fugitive slave .' The pro- 
vision of the Constitution is mandatory; its lan- 
guage explicit: he " shall be delivered up on 
claim of the party to whom such service or labor 
may be due." Have you obeyed this mandate.' 
Have you executed this provision of the Consti- 
tution .' Have you redeemed your plighted faith, 
thus solemnly pledged in the fundamental, sacred 
compact of union ? It is notorious that you have 
resisted and defeated it. The provision is worth 
nothing to the South, nothing to any one citizen 
of the South. You have resisted it individually 
and collectively, socially and politically. You have 
resisted it as men and as citizens; you resisted 
it in county meetings, in primary popular assem- 
blies, in political clubs, by party organizations, 
and by solemn legislative enactments. You have 
resisted it by violence, by organized force, by 
mobs, even unto battle, death, and murder. The 
citizen of the South, engaged in the lawful eft'ort 
to recover his own property, has been publicly 
and barbarously put to death, and the murderer 
has found safety and security in the public sen- 
timent of the North, and in lawless combinations 
of Abolitionists, Free-Soiiers, bullies, and black- 
guards. 

All this was true, even before the mockery of 
compromise to which the South was called upon 
to submit in 1850, when the North took all, and 
more than all, acquired from Mexico, with the 
eighty-two thousand square miles purchased from 
Te.\as; when the North wrested from the south- 
ern citizen the right to sell his own property in 
the city of Washington, and slavery itself was 
virtually abolished in the District of Columbia. 
For all this, the North condescended to vouchsafe 
to the South the reenactment of the fugitive slave 
law, and the recognition of the doctrine of con- 
gressional non-intervention; the latter of which 
has been metamorphosed into the absurd and mis- 
whicli has secured to the North great cities, mar- j chievous doctrine of squatter sovereignty by one 
hie palaces, and gorgeous equipages, resulting , political party of the North, and utterly repudi- 
from profits on the labor of the oppressed South | ated by the other, or Black Republican party. 
— that South ground into the dust under the op- i The reenactment of the fugitive slave law only 
eration of this odious commercial system. And j served to afford to the North an opportunity to 
again the South did consent to the ordinance of reenact the insulting violation of plighted faith, 
1787, and thereby established forever the oppres- and to outrage the rights of the South by an utter 
sive ascendency of the North; bringing into the disregard of all social, moral, religious, legal, and 
present House of Representatives the all-control- constitutional obligation. I salute the honorable 
ling force of fifty members. How has the North gentleman from Pennsylvania. Once more I com- 
performcd her part of tin- contract? How has mend the poisoned chalice to his lip. Sir, the 
she redeemed her plighted faith? i| charge of breach of plighted faith comes with ill 

As to representation, it is true we have about ' grace from that side of the House. 



Printed at the Congreasional Globe Office. 



